Okla. Stat. » Title 10A — CHILDREN AND JUVENILE CODE
Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 10A, § 2-5-208 (2026)

Repealed by Laws 2022, c. 375, § 13, eff. Nov. 1,

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

2022.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2009–2024 · leading case: State v. Georgius, 696 S.E.2d 18 (W. Va. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Georgius, 696 S.E.2d 18 (W. Va. 2010). · cites it 2× “Okla. Stat. tit. 10A § 2-5-208 (2009). Additionally, the courts of New York have developed criteria for determining whether a defendant should receive treatment as a youthful offender: While the statute does not set forth any specific criteria to be considered upon an…”
State v. K.B., 2022 OK CR 22, 518 P.3d 118. · cites it 6× “The State contends that the trial court improperly weighed the seven factors enumerated in 10A O.S.Supp.2018, § 2-5-208. Alternatively, the State argues that the trial court improperly considered factors outside of those enumerated in the statute.”
J.T.A. v. State, 422 P.3d 778 (Okla. Crim. App. 2018). · cites it 4× “See 10A O.S.2011, § 2-5-208(D), (E). There was no evidence presented to the trial court outlining a treatment plan for Appellant based on his specific needs or the current availability of such treatment within the Youthful Offender system.”
K.M.C. v. State, 2009 OK CR 29, 221 P.3d 735. “T2 After Appellant was bound over for trial at preliminary hearing, the State filed a motion to sentence Appellant as an adult, pursuant to 10A O.S.Supp.2009, § 2-5-208. 1 The hearing on the motion to sentence Appellant as an adult was held before Judge Kellough on February 27,…”
J.T.A. v. State, 2018 OK CR 12. · cites it 8× “See 10A O.S.2011, § 2-5-208(D), (E). There was no evidence presented to the trial court outlining a treatment plan for Appellant based on his specific needs or the current availability of such treatment within the Youthful Offender system.”
State v. K.B., 2022 OK CR 22, 518 P.3d 118. · cites it 5× “The State contends that the trial court improperly weighed the seven factors enumerated in 10A O.S.Supp.2018, § 2-5-208. Alternatively, the State argues that the trial court improperly considered factors outside of those enumerated in the statute.”
State v. J.B., 2022 OK CR 18, 516 P.3d 712. · cites it 4× “10A O.S.Supp.2018, § 2-5-208(A). The trial court is required to hold a hearing and grant the motion if the record and evidence prove "by clear and convincing evidence that there is good cause to believe that the accused person would not reasonably complete a plan of…”
In re Approval of Unif. Judgment of Adjudication as a Youthful Offender, 2024 OK 6. · cites it 2× “__________________________________________________________________________________________________ The Youthful Offender is placed in the: [ ] Custody OR [ ] Supervision of: [ ] The Office of Juvenile Affairs or [ ] other:…”
KMC v. State, 2009 OK CR 29, 221 P.3d 735. · cites it 3× “¶ 2 After Appellant was bound over for trial at preliminary hearing, the State filed a motion to sentence Appellant as an adult, pursuant to 10A O.S.Supp.2009, § 2-5-208. [1] The hearing on the motion to sentence Appellant as an adult was held before Judge Kellough on February…”
Okla. Stat. tit. 10A, § 2-5-208(A): 1 case
State v. J.B., 2022 OK CR 18, 516 P.3d 712. “10A O.S.Supp.2018, § 2-5-208(A). The trial court is required to hold a hearing and grant the motion if the record and evidence prove "by clear and convincing evidence that there is good cause to believe that the accused person would not reasonably complete a plan of…”
Okla. Stat. tit. 10A, § 2-5-208(C)(2): 3 cases
State v. K.B., 2022 OK CR 22, 518 P.3d 118. “The State contends that the trial court improperly weighed the seven factors enumerated in 10A O.S.Supp.2018, § 2-5-208. Alternatively, the State argues that the trial court improperly considered factors outside of those enumerated in the statute.”
State v. K.B., 2022 OK CR 22, 518 P.3d 118. “The State contends that the trial court improperly weighed the seven factors enumerated in 10A O.S.Supp.2018, § 2-5-208. Alternatively, the State argues that the trial court improperly considered factors outside of those enumerated in the statute.”
KMC v. State, 2009 OK CR 29, 221 P.3d 735. “¶ 2 After Appellant was bound over for trial at preliminary hearing, the State filed a motion to sentence Appellant as an adult, pursuant to 10A O.S.Supp.2009, § 2-5-208. [1] The hearing on the motion to sentence Appellant as an adult was held before Judge Kellough on February…”
Okla. Stat. tit. 10A, § 2-5-208(D): 6 cases
J.T.A. v. State, 422 P.3d 778 (Okla. Crim. App. 2018). “See 10A O.S.2011, § 2-5-208(D), (E). There was no evidence presented to the trial court outlining a treatment plan for Appellant based on his specific needs or the current availability of such treatment within the Youthful Offender system.”
State v. K.B., 2022 OK CR 22, 518 P.3d 118. “The State contends that the trial court improperly weighed the seven factors enumerated in 10A O.S.Supp.2018, § 2-5-208. Alternatively, the State argues that the trial court improperly considered factors outside of those enumerated in the statute.”
J.T.A. v. State, 2018 OK CR 12. “See 10A O.S.2011, § 2-5-208(D), (E). There was no evidence presented to the trial court outlining a treatment plan for Appellant based on his specific needs or the current availability of such treatment within the Youthful Offender system.”
State v. J.B., 2022 OK CR 18, 516 P.3d 712. “10A O.S.Supp.2018, § 2-5-208(A). The trial court is required to hold a hearing and grant the motion if the record and evidence prove "by clear and convincing evidence that there is good cause to believe that the accused person would not reasonably complete a plan of…”
State v. K.B., 2022 OK CR 22, 518 P.3d 118. “The State contends that the trial court improperly weighed the seven factors enumerated in 10A O.S.Supp.2018, § 2-5-208. Alternatively, the State argues that the trial court improperly considered factors outside of those enumerated in the statute.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 10A, § 2-5-208(E): 2 cases
In re Approval of Unif. Judgment of Adjudication as a Youthful Offender, 2024 OK 6. “__________________________________________________________________________________________________ The Youthful Offender is placed in the: [ ] Custody OR [ ] Supervision of: [ ] The Office of Juvenile Affairs or [ ] other:…”
State v. J.B., 2022 OK CR 18, 516 P.3d 712. “10A O.S.Supp.2018, § 2-5-208(A). The trial court is required to hold a hearing and grant the motion if the record and evidence prove "by clear and convincing evidence that there is good cause to believe that the accused person would not reasonably complete a plan of…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.